extract_json_value

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the dot-notation mechanism and gives an example, but does not describe error handling, missing keys, type preservation, or any side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then a usage scenario. Every sentence earns its place; no waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (2 string params, has output schema). The description covers purpose, usage context, and a param hint, which is sufficient for this complexity. It doesn't explain return value format, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies json_path via 'dot-notation path' and example, and implies response_json is a JSON response string. However, it lacks explicit constraints or format details for either parameter, so it only partially compensates.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool extracts a specific value from a JSON response using dot-notation path, which is a specific verb+resource. It also provides a concrete example ('data.id' → 42) and distinguishes it from siblings like parse_api_spec by focusing on runtime value extraction from responses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear use case: essential for chained attacks to grab dynamically created resource IDs from POST responses. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.